For the Record
Dean Wright on Ethics, Innovation and Values
Audience and media: Can this marriage be saved?
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
Reuters recently hosted a panel at our New York headquarters called “Audience and the Media: A Shaky Marriage.” I was on the panel with a distinguished group: Lisa Shepard, ombudsman of National Public Radio; Andrew Alexander, ombudsman of The Washington Post; and Michael Oreskes, senior managing editor of The Associated Press. Jack Shafer, editor-at-large of Slate, was the moderator.
The key question we explored was: “How can mainstream news organizations retain (or regain) their audiences’ trust in a skeptical world where almost anyone with an Internet connection can be a publisher?” It will come as no surprise that we did not answer the question definitively in the 75 minutes we were on stage. However, a number of questions–some quite troubling–were raised. Rather than attempt to summarize all the points raised and positions taken by the panelists and the audience, I’ll explore some of the questions raised in my mind.
–Why do people mistrust the media and whose fault is it?
Much of the fault lies with the mainstream media. For far too many years, news organizations had an arrogant, one-way relationship with our audiences. We gathered news, packaged it in ways we thought made sense and shoveled it out to our audiences. If you liked what we delivered, fine. If not, well, you could always write a letter to the editor of the newspaper where you saw the story. Now I think the balance is much better. Feedback is instantaneous, transparency is the norm and our readers can also be publishers on their own.
On the other hand, much of the distrust is not our fault. Discourse–certainly in the United States– has become far more polarized and news consumers are seeking out news sources that support their own politics or world view. That makes it especially difficult for those of us who pride ourselves on being independent and free of bias. Readers sometimes see bias when a news report doesn’t support their particular world view.
Let’s remember that the idea of an unbiased and independent press is relatively new. Many news consumers around the world choose a news outlet that reflects their world view. I worry that a large cohort of news consumers now expect that–and prefer it.
After the warm glow, telling the cold, hard truths
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
The president was inaugurated in front of adoring crowds and positive reviews in the media. As the unpopular incumbent sat on the platform with him, the new Democratic chief executive took office as the nation faced a crippling economic crisis. The incoming president was a charismatic figure who had run a brilliant campaign and had handled the press with aplomb. The media were ready to give him a break.
That was 1933, and in Franklin Roosevelt’s case, the media gave him a break.
For Barack Obama, the honeymoon was shorter.
Less than 36 hours after Obama took the oath of office, the White House denied news photographers access to the new president’s do-over swearing in, instead releasing official White House photos of the event. Reuters, The Associated Press and Agence France-Presse protested and refused to distribute the official photos (which nevertheless showed up on the websites of a number of large U.S. newspapers).
This is an important issue for news organisations, the public and for an administration that has promised a new era of transparency in doing the people’s business. How are people to know, for example, that the official photos haven’t been staged?
All U.S. administrations seek to manage the flow of information and the White House and the news media have a complex, interdependent relationship. Each needs the other. But it’s important that media organisations remember who’s most important.
Are you really making a comment on ‘transparency’ just due to the white house not letting the media in to the second swearing in of Obama?
Is there really nothing more important to talk about? Im angered that made that much of a hubbub about the first go around that the man felt that he had to do it again and waste more time appeasing and delaying his work as president.
Do people feel empowered when they point out the mistakes of others (be they mistakes or not) when they themselves don’t have to be in the line of fire, or have as heavy of responsibilities?
Come on now.
Reporting in Gaza: Striving for fairness
Dean Wright is Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards. Any opinions are his own.
Let’s say it up front: Almost all of you will find something in this column to take issue with.
That’s because the subject is the conflict in Gaza and perceptions of bias in reporting on it. News consumers detect media bias on any number of subjects, but there is nothing like the continuing Mideast conflict to bring out the passions of partisans on all sides.
Here’s a small sample of some of the more restrained comments that have come in to the Reuters reader feedback line:
–“It seems like the whole world wants to condemn Israel for the war/actions it’s taking. Sorry Reuters but for me, I can see right through your pro Palestinian slant. Why don’t you investigate how a U.N. Camp was used as a staging area for Hamas rockets? …”
–“Your pro Israel reporting from Gaza makes one thing perfectly clear. Israel has some control over Reuters. You are in their pocket. Why else would you choose to slant information?”
–“Why does Reuters insist on letting someone such as Nidal al-Mughrabi cover the war on Gaza? His reporting is completely biased and filled with inflammatory rhetoric. Doesn’t Reuters have a reporter that understands both sides of the issue and that can JUST REPORT THE NEWS!! I consider such reporting on your part as an insult to my intelligence. Why must you participate in antisemitic propaganda?”
A very well-reasoned summary of your challenges and successes in covering a devastating event under such debilitating conditions. Kudos to you for the astounding effort. I believe Reuters in the pre-eminent source for news on the conflict given your boots-on-the-ground and the US mainstream media’s refusal to provide accurate information from Gaza.
I just left yahoo.com and changed my home page because I couldn’t stand being forced to go through FB to comment. Now, I just posted a comment on this site and got your message about censorship. Censorship is censorship not matter how you try to dress it up. And censorship is subject to ones opinion, that being the censors. Therefore, someone from your organization is telling the public what is acceptable to read and what is not. That is bias not matter how you look at it. It is subject to the opinion and interpretation of another. I agree that I read some pretty ignorant or angry, venting comments that I consider worthless. But after reading about 2 or 3, I move on. But that is according to my standards and what I consider to be of value. I can’t force that on someone else because it is my view. But you have taken away the power and control of the individual to determine for themselves what is of value and interesting and what is not and put it in the hands of those it shouldn’t be in. I think that this is a bad idea and that we have enough liberties being taken from us at record speed these days. The last thing we need is an open forum to become a censored one regardless of who likes what. I will stay with this site temporarily to see what you do about this. If I am not satisfied, I will move on. I still have the freedom to do that!